Against the superficial materialists

The Western world developed a tendency to universalize concepts—for instance, moral absolutism or human rights—which are considered to have the same underlying impulse governing their motion, wherein no external agent is needed, and which are the authors of their own movement and change. Caitlin Johnstone, writer of a popular blog, never tires of accusing the rich of being mentally ill and that most people live in the 'Matrix.’ Indeed, she even wrote a book called Notes From The Edge Of The Narrative Matrix. This tendency to view oneself as living in reality while others live in unreality permeates Western thinking, including materialism. By virtue of a superficial materialism, those who disagree must represent the opposite of materialism; and, under the spell of their own seductive rationality, they consider any opposition to be irrational and often mentally ill as well. Our socialism is scientific and requires a particular education—mostly self-education since our educational institutions in the West are bourgeois in nature. Yet many who are educated, coders for example, regard their political opinions as more valuable, as if a relative education and a subjective higher intelligence lend truth to any opinions they happen to hold. Just as a mathematical equation requires numerous numbers in a specific sequence, rational thinking is interpreted in a universalistic key—thus its results are considered absolute and unchanging. Whatever opinion they hold becomes an absolute truth, as they then become the arbiters of reality, holding the torch of enlightenment and bringing light to those still in the dark and lit afire all who disagree. They reject the dialectical relationship between reason and the emotions/senses, the former being the master and regulator of the latter, and instead embrace rationality alone, denying in advance any biases or prejudices they may have. For them, the general population represents ignorance, a homogenous blob antithetical to reason—the uncivilized, the rabble, the mob, the childlike masses, or however they call them—who are always prone to hysterical, contagious psychosis. Conversely, the truth-peddlers consider themselves to be stoic and purely rational, relegating everybody else to an inferior rank and going as far as to accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being a ‘petulant child.’ The result of this mechanical rationality becomes universal, radiating pure enlightenment, apparently so pure as to instantly convert anyone who dares to learn its truths into a believer. It is in the nature of materialism to analyze more concretely, with a focus on the content rather than the form, yet without rejecting the relationship between the two. However, we are still vulnerable to making mistakes here and there. Most importantly, it does not mean we live in reality while others live in unreality. Generally speaking, many will analyze the form of a phenomenon in isolation from anything else and treat it as the agent of its own development. Consequently, liberals are prone to criticizing culture with culture. A danger thus emerges: the idea of the clash of civilizations. Another danger is stereotypical formations—that is, unchanging identities such as races, sexuality or sex. Hence, we should reject absolutes and uphold dialectical thinking. Confusing an effect for its cause is often the liberal’s most common mistake and it is a dangerous mistake too. We cannot remove our truth—the truth that capitalism is the problem—from the process that gave rise to it and from our personal experiences. And we certainly cannot say, “Here is our truth; now bow down before it.” The realization that capitalism must be changed is not a universal process. There is no magical formula to turn someone into a socialist instantly; a person must be given the right tools and live through the process themselves. Each of our developments is different and yet shares many similarities. Many of us became socialists through the dehumanization nature of capitalism. Plenty of others, however, became as such from capitalism’s never-ending exploitation. It is often said that as long as the Western proletariat doesn’t suffer enough, they will never revolt. Let’s not forget the phenomenon whereby liberals flock to fascism at the smallest scratch done to them; therefore it follows that, due to their better material conditions, it will take much less for them to revolt. And since all other revolutions began in a state of poverty before anything of historical importance happened, any comparison must take into account the relative poverty in each case. On a related note, the American ruling class has announced its intent to ban the trans population from gun ownership. Through rhetorical accusations of mental illness, they might succeed in the long run. It appears to me that the idea that “liberalism is a mental illness,” promoted by reactionaries all over the internet in the 2010s, is now being used by the ruling class. History has proven to us that when oppressed classes attempt to fight back, they are viewed as hysterical and mentally ill. Gustave Le Bon’s Psychologie des Foules comes to mind, which was an inspiration for some of Freud’s theories as well. Unfortunately, those theories have had a significant influence on Western thought. It is in the nature of revolutions to fight against the status quo; by going against the grain, it is perceived by many as abnormal behavior. With this political artifice, our bourgeoisie intends to legalize the disarmament of dissidents, to isolate them from society at large, and to institutionalize anyone deemed mentally ill and dangerous. By subsuming gender diversity and Leftism under the umbrella of mental illness, mental illness itself becomes an ideological category. Those who suffer from any mental conditions are now devalued by both sides: from the left by their accusations that the reactionaries are actually the ones who are mentally ill, and from the right with their usual victim-blaming. BadEmpanada recently claimed that OCD is not real and is a made-up thing created by the “upper classes” in the West. Due to a superficial materialism, he confines OCD to the realm of ideology. It seems the mistake these people make is the brave acknowledgment that only the physical world exists, thus claiming that anything else is merely a delusion. Yet studies have shown us that PTSD, for instance, has very real, physical manifestations that consequently change parts of the victims’ brains. I don't really know how to end this so that's all I guess. Thank you for reading my post.